The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1887-12-31
THE TRUE INWARDNEsS AND OUTCOME OF
THE MlLLIGAN TRIAL.

In reference 10 the trial of VIM l.. Mil
ligap, the Ottawa JOUrn0l, Of Dec. 2lth
makes the following statement;
"The farce through which Billy Mill
gan went was but the lever with which tC
lull public indignation, but public opinion
hardly paused 10 listen, for the fact was
generally known that there was no case
against Milligan. Ia short, the JOurnaL
the only newspaper that has maintained a
bold front all the way through the fight had
never given more than the fact that Mill
gan was indicted. We were In full poss.
ession of the facts, and never did believe
the people had criminal case that could
be made to stick against him."
Coming from the source ii does, the
statement Of the Journdl, taken In connec-
ton with few facts known to all who are
in the least familiar with the history Of
the socalled boodler cases" involves, (un-
Willingly perhaps to the author the sever
est censure yet made on the conduct of the
States Attorney and Norton, the leader of
the Investigating Committee and the au-
thor of the entire "boodler" sensstionalism
and ought to open the eyes Of all honest
men who will give the subject moments
reflection.
At the March term, 1887, a grand Jury
of this county found an indictment against
William l., Milligan, charging him with
the crime of perjury, Norton was one Of
the witnesses on whose sworn statements
TO them the grand jury found the in
diCtment. The suificiency Of this indict-
ment was argued pro and con before Judge
Stipp, but before his decision was an
nounced, the States Attorney of his own
notion a0lle pressed the Indictment What
were the motives of Mr.. Moloney, or what
induced him to take this action, we do not
pretend TO know but, in justice to him, it
Is fair TO presume one of two things was
the case: either he had become convinced
that the Indictment he had drawn was so
imperfect on the face of it, and therefore
Judge S.ipp would order 1t to be quashed,
or else he believed the testimony on which
1t had been found was so worthless that
trial. where his witnesses must be subject.
ed to cross examination, would inevitably
result In Milligans acquital. So far as we
know, Mr.. Moloney has never explained
which of those two things caused him to
take the extraordinary course he did with
respect to that Indictment, - extraordinary
In view of what followed. For at the same
term Of court when he nOlle pressed the
first indictment, he affixed his official sig
nature to second one, varying In some
respects from the first, but charging Mill
gan with the same crime, perjury. Norton
was also witness before the second grand
jury; his name appears on the back Of
both of the indictments as one OF the peo-
pies witnesses, and Its being there amounts
TO voucher on the part of the States At
torney that Norton's testimony was mate
rial and pertinent 70 the issue to be tried.
Now comes singular part of the per-
formance-the farce" as the Journal
characterizes Milligans trial, The charge
against Milligan was that of periury-of
having sworn to statement that was false
In fact, and by him known TO be false. Yet
on the trial, the States Attorney made no
attempt to prove that what MilIigan had
sworn TO was untrue in any particlar, He
did not claim that a single witness on
whose sworn statements the grand jury had
found the indictment, was not within call
In fact Norton was in the court house.
The States Attorney did not put him on
the witness stand. Why did he not do so?
Did Norton decline to face the music in
open court or did the States Attorney be.
lieve his testimony was worthless This
query is pertinent, for no one the least
familiar with the history of the boodler
case can doubt the fact that Norton him.
self was the instigator Of the investiga-
tion directed the working of the commit,
tee, and published the details of its pro.
gress from time to time as editorials in the
Journal
And now, says the Joundl, "we were
in full possession of all the facts, and new.
er did believe the people had criminal
case that could be made to stick against
Milligan," Before weighing the force OF
this declaration and what it implies, II is
important to consider who makes II.
A year ago when the investigating com,
mittee under the leadership of Norton had
begun its work, and before il had made
any report, or any indictment had been
sought OF presented In the so called "tood-
Ter cases the JouiHdi, claiming TO have
special and reliable sources of information
raised the cry of " boodlerism" against the
ey-otflcials of the county. From that day
to this 1t has persisted In that cry and
claims to bethe only newspaper that has
maintained bold front all the way through
the fight. II has assumed to be and il has
been the special champion and organ of
Norton. In fact In this whole boodler
4